Yes, I would be worried about Daniels. As a total (100%) supportive of Obama/Biden, Pelosi,and Reid, the only GOP that worries me is Daniels.

There is NO ONE ELSE in the GOP that an even an ounce of accomplishment. Palin, do not make me laugh. But, I love her to be the GOP nominee. We would crush her so bad, that GOP will be finished as a Party forever and ever.

GOP is finished, either way. Nov. 2010 is dark year for them. Nov. 2012 is hope, if Daniels is their nominee. But, GOP is made up foolish people. They will select Palin (thank god for that).

(The Crypto Jew)His desire for a "cease-fire in the culture wars" is a little distressing, because his opponents will read that as "let us win". The onus of a cease fire is on the party on offense.

Well that’s an interesting take on it, and it puts Daniels in between two stools, then…Gay Rights activists are on the “offense”, but so too are “Pro-Choice” activists…so Daniels’ position angers both Left and Right…

And it’s pointless, as a Republican, Daniels will be tarred as a tool of the Religious Right, no matter what. So being “moderate” doesn’t really do that much for you.

America's asshole - what the fuck is "a total supportive"? Then, you go on to "write", "But, GOP is made up foolish people" - what the fuck was that supposed to mean? I get that you are the worst kind of jock sniffer, but at least pretend to write in standard English.

Your ESL teacher needs to be fired. I am glad that you have a "girlfriend" and that you work for the "democrats", but seriously, hire someone to review what you spew on here - you are more retarded than hdhouse.

Daniels has been my pick for the last few months, regardless of what Brooks says. Daniels has been CEO of a large corporation, director of the OMB under Bush, as gov of Indiana turned a deficit into a surplus. Businesses are moving there. He's the GOPer who called for social issues to be put on the back burner for now, which takes some moxie in the conservative world.

And charisma? By 2012 people will be overdosed on empty charisma and rhetoric, and an anti-charisma candidate will seem safe and refreshing. We have elected non-charismatic presidents before.

OH. Another soggy white bread mayonnaise and cucumber sandwich candidate (ht Hillbuzz)that the MSM (Democrat lapdogs) are trying to yet again foist on the Republicans.

I certainly hope that the Republicans have learned their lesson after the McCain (maverick, cross the aisles, darling of the media) fiasco. The Tea Party has figured it out. How about the Cocktail Party Republicans?

The Media does not have any pretense of impartiality. They want to promote the least electable candidate on the Republicans, just like they did in 08.

I'd rather go down fighting than run a bland, prefabricated, media approved candidate that is guaranteed to lose.

So why would we want Davis Brooks to pick the GOP's nominee? Brooks is an Ivy League New England RINO...and so is Mitch, spiritually. The answer lies in a certain family of Ivy League new England Rinos who plan to slip back into control of the GOP, whose name is spelled B U S H. Ask Mitch if he will be Palin's VP. NO, because that helps the Palin Family instead of the Bush Family. All of the hidden Artillery is aimed at Palin from the Bush Family and from the Democrats media friends. If she is gutsy enough to beat both of them, than she will make a hell of a President.

I like Brooks. I try to read his column regularly. I also like Mitch. I would prefer John Huntsman - but I doubt he will run. Palin is, imo, not electable. She is like Dan Qualye now - damaged material. Palin is doing a great job exciting the base for the Nov elections. She is also powerfully impacting the national debate - and making a bunch of money. Good for her.

Brooks had a column recently about responsibility and wanting to see a candidate emerge who can lead on responsiblity. I really agree. Lots of people, I think, would rather see individuals, government and corporations actually taking responsiblity than they are concerned about ideology.

While I do not always agree with David Brooks, I do admire the depth of his knowledge and his connections which allow him to make insightful comments about our times. I thought his interview with Charlie Rose was a must see. Of course as a reasonable conservative well aware of the historical role that limited government has played in our countries development, the current breed will ignore him. Pity.

(The Crypto Jew)Brooks had a column recently about responsibility and wanting to see a candidate emerge who can lead on responsiblity.

Well that’s better than an impeccable crease in one’s trousers I guess. As Brooks seems to have chosen one candidate on his sartorial perfection I’ll just pass on Brooks recommendation.

“Truce McDaniels” is another person I’ll pass on too, thanx….If Daniels doesn’t think Abortion is important enough to warrant his attention, well then, I guess I’ll just ignore him…with some Conservatives I can get smaller government AND Pro-Choice, it’s not either or, you know…

(The Crypto Jew)Of course as a reasonable conservative well aware of the historical role that limited government has played in our countries development, the current breed will ignore him. Pity.

Well that and the fact he supported OBAMA…which certainly suggests he DOESN’T KNOW THE ROLE LIMITED GOVERNMENT PLAYED IN OUR COUNTRY’S DEVELOPMENT, if he can vote for a POTUS who actively calls for “Progressives” to vote for the Democrats, this Fall.

Sophie...I am so glad to hear that by nominating a cold Presbyterian with the Charisma of a small rock, that the GOP can then take advantage of the coming backlash against popularity. I am waiting...when does that magic trick start to happen?

I don't see it. The one exception that I know of of a Republican getting the nomination before having become known to America before, either as a previous Presidential candidate or that level of exposure was GWB (43), and he shared name recognition with his father GHWB (41), at least since Goldwater.

Since then, who have they nominated?- Nixon - former Presidential candidate and VP- Ford - President- Reagan - ran against Ford - Bush (41) - Reagan VP and ran against him for nomination.- Dole - Senate majority leader and I think ran against Bush (41) in either 1988 or 1992.- Bush (43) - Son of Bush (41)- McCain - famous Senator who had run against Bush (43) in 2000.

That is why I see the most likely GOP candidates as Palin, Huckleberry, Romney, Gingrich, and I don't know who else. Maybe the Bush brother who was governor of Florida, but we are probably still Bushed out.

If Daniels is seriously interested, he needs to run a credible campaign this time, win votes and some delegates, and then aim at 2016 if the Republican candidate doesn't win in 2012.

I think that this may be where the party's conservative side shows itself. The GOP is just the opposite the Democrats here. They tend to only nominate (excluding, I think, Goldwater) known quantities, at least for 60 years now, and Daniels is not well enough known outside the inside players to get the nomination. And, it seems to be a working system, because at the next election, they will have held the Presidency for 36 of the last 60 years (60%) using it. And done that, with the Democrats having a significant registration edge through much of that time.

Bruce Hayden...You are correct. IF the GOP nominee loses in 2012, then the GOP nominee in 2016 will win. So running a loser in 2012 sets up Jeb Bush for 2016. However, running a winner in 2012 blocks Jeb in 2016. Ergo, the Bushes want Daniels and not Palin to get the GOP nomination since he is a sure loser and she is a sure winner. White men are Obama's baited field, but a White woman will have Obama's number big time; ending slavery being such a long struggle and all.

(The Crypto Jew)Gotta love the anti-intellectual, anti-historical comments offered on this blog along with the snide insinuations-- no wonder the best the Republicans can offer is the Pledge backwards.

And “the Pledge Backwards” Oh a touch I do declare…thou hast wounded me to the quick with thy witty repartee, so much better than the snide insulations that are otherwise leveled hereabouts! The Pledge backwards, let’s see…”egdelP” nah doesn’t really have that much ring to it.

Please resort to calling us "tea-baggers" as soon as posible, for that will be a crowning accomplishment.

Bruce Hayden...You are correct. IF the GOP nominee loses in 2012, then the GOP nominee in 2016 will win. So running a loser in 2012 sets up Jeb Bush for 2016. However, running a winner in 2012 blocks Jeb in 2016. Ergo, the Bushes want Daniels and not Palin to get the GOP nomination since he is a sure loser and she is a sure winner. White men are Obama's baited field, but a White woman will have Obama's number big time; ending slavery being such a long struggle and all.

Interestingly, Hillary! has somewhat the same dynamic. She really can't run in both years, because if she does, and loses again to Obama this time, then she would be damaged goods by 2016. But it is hard to run successfully against an incumbent, esp. after you have worked for him. Her problem, which Jeb Bush doesn't face as much, is her age. Late 60s by 2016, combined with liberals being, on average, younger than conservatives, may make it hard for her to connect with the liberal base when she is that old.

I don't think that Palin is a sure fire winner in 2012. But, unfortunately, there isn't anyone obvious at that level in the party who I see as having a better chance.

Romney's shot was 2008. He has two problems in 2012. First, two Harvard degrees (MBA, JD). Second, RomneyCare.

Huckleberry is a social conservative and a fiscal moderate. The wrong combination for the next Presidential election.

Gingrich is still too polarizing (not that Palin isn't), and connects better to the intelligentsia than the mainstream.

What Palin can do, which the other candidates cannot, is go up the Ohio River valley, up into the midwest, and pull the Jacksonian belt. This is where Obama was weak against Hillary!, and where Palin got rock star status at campaign events. If she can pull those states, as I think that she can, Obama is left with the northern Atlantic coast, the Pacific (excluding, of course, Alaska), Ill., and not much else. Maybe CO, NM, MN, and, to give credit here, WI. But even those states may be problematic.

Of course, if the Democrats get smart, they will dump Obama, and go with Hillary!, who I think could run much better against Palin. She would negate the gender issue, and did run much better than the President in the Jacksonian belt. But, then, a lot of Blacks would likely stay home...

Unless Chris Christie runs (which I seriously doubt) the Republican nominee - and winner - in 2012 will be President Sarah Palin.

There is no one else who even comes close.

I think that Crack has a good point there. I listened the other day to some of Christie's greatest hits. And the guy is good. Not the least bit reluctant to take the fight to the enemy, call him out, and make him look foolish.

And Christie is right there with one of the biggest emerging issues - overpay and much too generous of benefits for government employees. Few of us outside government have generous defined-benefit pensions, and so, why should we pay for them for those who (supposedly) work for us?

I don't see any of the "names" getting the nod. Romney and Huckleberry are the front-runners and I have yet to see the front-runner this far out get the nod in either party. Miss Sarah, if she wants the job, is out also, due to lack of experience.

Christie and Brewer need more time in grade and I don't see another RINO being nominated after '08.

I like both of these guys, but I like Daniels too (so far, all politicians have slime underneath). Unfortunately what he said was so damaging he's probably out. He should have said he intends to prioritize fiscal issues because the circumstances demand it.

There is no cease fire with a liberal, there is only surrender. To them all politics are in your face all the time BAMN. Any comment which shows you so minunderstand liberal ideology should be disqualifying.

Well that’s better than an impeccable crease in one’s trousers I guess.

I think that responsibility will become more and more of an issue. To me, it is inherent in freedom. Freedom without responsiblity leads to tryanny. Taking responsibility is also assuming power in that if you take responsiblity about something - you are not a victim of it. So, imo, freedom, responsiblity and power are intricately and intimately linked.

2012, of course, is light year's away :-) It's fun to speculate - and I do prefer Daniels to Palin, Gingrich, Huckabee or Romney. But that is just my opinion. I'm not a republican - so I won't be voting in the primaries. I'm not a democrat either - but it seems likely that Obama will run again.

Obama uses the word responsibility - but that is generally when he is lecturing others about what he thinks they should do :-) Obama seems quite enamored with blame - which, imo, is very different that responsiblity. And blame has gotten him this far. But I think the people are tiring of it now. He has been able to do pretty much what he wanted to - and it hasn't worked. So taking responsilbity would be refreshing - but it doesn't seem to be in his nature to do that.

Either way, I think Daniels is a better choice - especially because of his truce on the culture war. I don't want a theocrats in office trying to bully people into living by their values. I supported Rudy in the last election - but, of course, the religious right vetoed him. Everyone lost because of that, imo.

(The Crypto Jew)Either way, I think Daniels is a better choice - especially because of his truce on the culture war. I don't want a theocrats in office trying to bully people into living by their values.

Funny, that’s what government does…it’s why we have elections. Would you have voted for Lincoln…he had values…opposed the extension of slavery. Generally when people talk about theocrats and bullying people, they mean “people with whom I disagree and who are now implementing their policy preferences.”

Sunsong...What facts do you have to enable you to say that Palin is a Theocratic social issues candidate? Unlike Huckleberry, she has never made religion a part of her act. She favors the Constitution that established a secular Republic since 1789. Perhaps Palin is not anti-faith values. But that is what makes her for the Constitution and not for the dominant Religion of Secular Humanism.

R-Voltaire: "Gotta love the anti-intellectual, anti-historical comments offered on this blog along with the snide insinuations"

By this I presume you consider David Brooks an intellectual? Not sure about the "anti-historical" whatever that might mean. Plenty of snide comments, including insinuations, and including this one, of yours.

Palin and Christie are exciting candidates that would make 2012 a real contest. Daniels is about as exciting as Bob Dole. It would be hugely deflating for conservatives, especially social conservatives if he were the nominee. Honestly I don't see him winning any Southern State primary. After Daniels made the truce comment I could not in good conscience vote for him in a primary.

The Brooks endorsement is really a millstone around Daniels neck. Getting the thumbs up from the elitist faux conservative Brooks is like getting RINO stamped on your forehead. Given that the party is currently dominated by an anti-intellectual Tea Party wave (that's awesome by the way) the only thing worse would be Mike Castles' endorsement.

Sunsong...What facts do you have to enable you to say that Palin is a Theocratic social issues candidate? Unlike Huckleberry, she has never made religion a part of her act. She favors the Constitution that established a secular Republic since 1789. Perhaps Palin is not anti-faith values. But that is what makes her for the Constitution and not for the dominant Religion of Secular Humanism.

I think you answered your own question, don't you. I would also refer you to the comments here from those who would only support someone from the religious right - the theocratic wing of the party - and they like Palin. Why is that, do you think?

(The Crypto Jew)I'm looking for a party that does not seek to impose its values - but that seeks to run a competent, limited, responsible government.

Ah, the irony, as you miss the point…Responsible limited government IS A VALUE and you’ll be “imposing” it one someone..the only difference is, of course, you’re right and Huckabee is WRONG…

This is not to say all government is wrong, or that we all do it…but rather to try to end this idea that “imposing values” is something the OTHER guys does. ALL winners impose their values, it’s the “perk” of winning. We may disagree about the values being imposed, and advance many arguments, more or less good, in support of alternate positions, but in the end the winners get to impose their values…whether it is the idea of Social Justice or Limited Government. Your argument is akin to one I saw at Reason.com, that one of Obama’s proposed “Czars” was an “activist.” Uh yeah! That’s why s/he wanted to be Czar, to implement policies with which s/he agreed! And if Matt Welch had his way, libertarian “activists” would be in charge…being an activist with values isn’t wrong, per se it’s the values and nature of the activism.

(The Crypto Jew)the theocratic wing of the party - and they like Palin. Why is that, do you think?

As there ISN’T a “theocratic Wing of the Party” your point is moot. Or have I missed this Theocratic Wing…I mean I’ve prowled enough churches at night and seduced enough virgin Christian girls, you’d think I’d have run into some flyers concerning the various Meetings of the “Republican Party’s Theocratic Wing.” The Theocratic Wing is the Left/Progressive version of the Protocol’s of the Elders of Zion.

(The Crypto Jew)except the values I believe in don't involve stealing wealth from one person and giving it to another.

That’s as may be, but “they” won the election so they get to “steal” in your opinion. You get to set it aright this November, when you will “impose your values” on the losers. I don’t dispute the utility of libertarian/conservative positions….I don’t argue for Abortion, but I DO get tired of folks complaining about people imposing their values on people, when that it’s the very nature of an organized society…do you think thieves or murderers like you imposing your values on THEM? As was said of Gladstone, "I don't object to Gladstone always having the ace of trumps up his sleeve, but merely to his belief that the Almighty put it there."

Oh and murderers should get the most vicious torture we can think of before finally administering the death blow. Not that it will bring back the victim, but at least the family will get some measure of vengeance and society as well.

I thought she was the best of the four Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates in 2008, but then again the other three were complete tools. I think she has potential. But why the heck would she be a good choice when there are so many other people with better qualifications?

Mitch Daniels looks decent to me. Not my first choice, but I'd vote for him.

Sunsong is right. For many of us social conservatives the lack of pro-life credibility is enough to under cut any GOP candidate. Sarah Palin's personal life is evidence of her pro-life credibilty. Chris Christies veto of planned parenthood funding give's him credible. Mitch Daniels surrender in advance of a fight means he's not credible and clearly demonstrates his lack of commitment. Religion has a large part to play in the GOP; it's dishonest to deny it. This site may be dominated by philosophical conservatives rather than religious/social ones but that does not reflect the party as a whole.

Ah, the irony, as you miss the point…Responsible limited government IS A VALUE and you’ll be “imposing” it one someone..the only difference is, of course, you’re right and Huckabee is WRONG…

Even though you have some logic there - I disagree - of course :-)

I don't think it is an imposition to have responsible, limited government. And what I mean by that is - I don't think that freedom of choice (with responsiblity) is an imposition. Sure some on each end of the spectrum will wail and ga-nash their teeth because they want to use government to advance their agenda and *impose* their values on the rest of us - whether that is about gays or abortion or redistribution of wealth - they want to use the force of government to take away freedom of choice. I want freedom of choice given back. That's not an imposition imo.

Instapundit said his daughter has a theory that the American people vote for "opposites" in their presidents. Based on that theory[ which is a good one IMO], Christy gets the nod as most opposite of Obama.

Obama- lean with sharp pant creases, smooth talker, little or no experience and generally full of soup.

Sunsong is right. For many of us social conservatives the lack of pro-life credibility is enough to under cut any GOP candidate. Sarah Palin's personal life is evidence of her pro-life credibilty. Chris Christies veto of planned parenthood funding give's him credible. Mitch Daniels surrender in advance of a fight means he's not credible and clearly demonstrates his lack of commitment. Religion has a large part to play in the GOP; it's dishonest to deny it. This site may be dominated by philosophical conservatives rather than religious/social ones but that does not reflect the party as a whole.

Thanks Dave! I appreciate and admire your honesty. I don't know how many times I've been told here that there is no religious right - or that they are no longer viable.

If a GOP candidate does not pass the religious right's litmus tests - they are very close to doomed. I am not Christian - do not believe it is true and don't care to have it legislated. But that is just me :-)

Oh and murderers should get the most vicious torture we can think of before finally administering the death blow. Not that it will bring back the victim, but at least the family will get some measure of vengeance and society as well.

You're making a huge leap between supprting a limit on criminal behavior to the death penalty. It's not a serious argument.

As a Catholic position I can't support the death penalty in anything but very limited circumstances. Vengeance belongs to God alone and torture is inherently corrupting. Intrinsically evil is the way John Paul II said it.

However prison time for said criminals is morally acceptable and laudable as it protects the innocent. Without resorting to religion it is possible to simply define the principle that your rights end where another person begins. Freedom is not a license to kill.

You think Palin can't do anything in the next 12 months to change that?

I think Sarah Palin has been trying to improve people's opinion of her for two years and her approval rating has dropped. She has a future as a female Rush Limbaugh type, though -- someone influential within the party as an opinion maker.

Honestly I don't get the anti-abortion crowd. Do you really think you're going to ban abortion in this country EVER? Why not just use persuasion instead of FORCE?

Another canard, the vast majority of prolife folks do try persuasion as the ordinary means. It's the pro death crowd that has tyrannically imposed it's view through an irrational reading of the constitution, by force disenfranchising the people.

It doesn't matter if we win - it's not about worldly success. It's about facing up to the fundamental evil of our time so that when we meet Christ He welcome us as his faithful servants us. We believe this stuff - for real. I completely understand why you don't get us - we are best understood through "the eyes of faith". God is the axiom on which our world views diverge. I used to be an atheist I can empathize.

Sunsong...Theocratic beliefs are not the reason that the values crowd likes Palin. They like her because they trust her. The issue is one of having a religious faith or having an atheist humanist creed. One signals that the person is faithful and the other signals that the person is fickle. You can trust a person of faith not to be a theocrat, but a person whose credo is that man is the measure of all things cannot be trusted past the end of next week.

If a GOP candidate does not pass the religious right's litmus tests - they are very close to doomed. I am not Christian - do not believe it is true and don't care to have it legislated. But that is just me :-)

Speak for yourself, Priscilla. The rebuttal is the nomination of a guy named Bush.

Moreover, there were plenty of Conservatives, social and otherwise, who supported Rudy because of his stands on national security and fiscal responsibility and disagreed with his stand on social issues

Luckily for us she's not the only one whose approval rating has dropped. The electorate is in a foul mood. There's a lot of time between now and 2012 and POTUS politics is a distraction anyways.

I'm not saying she couldn't beat Obama. Maybe she could. I was responding to the idea that she was the best candidate to beat Obama. If she has to rely on the public disliking Obama more than her -- and she does -- then she's not a good choice.

"Palin is, imo, not electable. She is like Dan Qualye now - damaged material."

I don't think that Qualye wanted it bad enough to push through it.

But I would like to mention... this "damaged material" in my mind when applied to a human being is sort of vile. Being made unclean because of the actions of others is a faith-based concept and ought to be resisted just as much attributing "damaged goods" to a girl who was raped.

I don't think that this is *lessened* by the claim that, "Well, *I* don't think that way but other people do."

We have to decide what sort of world we desire to live in.

There is a *reason* that the "thrown under the bus" thing is so effective. Obama should stand by his people, just like everyone else should do.

I live in Indiana and I think Mitch Daniels has been a good Governor here in a difficult time. But the man has never even pretended to be a spiritual leader. He is a bean counter, but then there is nothing with that. Maybe we need a bean counter.

My biggest concern re Palin's viaility is her resigning the governor job mid-term. How does she adequately and forcefully rebut the claim that she could not hack it? How does she turn that into a positive to the voters?

You are in CA. What's your gut telling you about Whitman's chances vs. the Brown Dynasty

I agree with EPR. It is going to be close statewide and a tough tough slog, but I think that people are more than ready to have a 'bean counter' or a serious business person in the office. It is obvious that what we have been doing is NOT working.

My portion of the State.....Meg will carry by a 70% at least ratio. My county....more like 90%.

"I supported Rudy in the last election - but, of course, the religious right vetoed him. Everyone lost because of that, imo."

I supported Rudy, too.

But what I remember is a little different. What I remember is a few people saying pro-life was their single-voter concern and *everyone* else folding like wet tissue paper.

It wasn't ever (or hardly ever) "I like Rudy because..." It was just, "I like Rudy but..." But the "religious right" means he doesn't have a chance and we need to vote for someone who can *win*... Like McCain.

And Fred, Fred didn't have the "fire in his belly"... can't win! So we should vote for McCain."

And Mitt, Mitt wears funny undies and the "religious right" will never vote for him... So we should vote for McCain.

Does your sister who is an evangelical say precisely why she dislikes Palin 'alot', or does she just call her stupid and annoying? Which is itself rather stupid and annoying. As for myself, I react poorly to a shrill and excitable voice, one that tends to issue boilerplate axioms and platitudes. But if that could be sorted then I would be willing to reconsider.

I react poorly to a shrill and excitable voice, one that tends to issue boilerplate axioms and platitudes. But if that could be sorted then I would be willing to reconsider.

Like the people who were drawn to Obama, because he was (for instance) so articulate, I think you're looking at/for the wrong things. Like Bush, Palin may not be a great speaker but what she knows - not "believes" but knows - is the value of who we are as a nation. (She's the only candidate who could convincingly run on the slogan "No Sell-Out".) As far as I'm concerned, anything other supposed considerations are nothing more than needless distractions - all we want is a principled leader.

My sister likes Huckabee. Or did. I haven't asked her about politics lately.

I think that a lot of religious/social conservatives who are actually fiscally liberal... who are comfortable with the state doing what states do, because (as we're often told) it's a Christian value to take care of everyone... I can see that they wouldn't like Palin so much.

And I'd say to sunsong... that's because she really is "small government" compared to most. And someone who is genuinely of the opinion that it's not the state's business to make you a good person, isn't going to use the bully pulpit to lecture about "responsibility" and certainly isn't going to try to use law to enforce it.

Palin has a short policy history, but she does actually have one... of opposing corruption, of telling Big Oil who is boss and backing that up, of that pipe-line deal, of vetoing a bill sent to her desk to deny benefits to homosexual partners of state employees.

Yes, she thinks it's wrong to make choices about reproduction after actually reproducing instead of before, and she's not going to start insulting Christians with "fringe" views just to suck up to potential voters.

That's generally considered integrity.

I want to see her in some more debates and I want to see her asked policy questions now that she's had some time to adjust and prepare and learn to talk more slowly. I want a chance to decide.

I thought that she didn't do so badly before, that some of the "bad" answers she gave were actually because she was aware of the complexities and interactions of events... doesn't make good sound bites. I could follow her because her silly accent is my mother-tongue, but I understand how most people couldn't.

One of the oddities of the current moment is that the country wants a radical change in government but not a radical change in policy.

On the one hand, voters are completely disgusted with Washington. On the other hand, they have not changed their fundamental views on the issues. There has been some shift to the right over the past two years, but the policy landscape looks mostly the way it did over the last few decades. We’re still a closely divided nation; it’s just that we’re angrier about it.

The result is that over the next two years we’ll probably see gridlock on stilts. The energized Republicans will try to reduce the size of government, but they won’t be able to get their bills past President Obama. The surviving Democrats will try to expand government programs, but they will run smack into a closely divided Senate and possibly a Republican-controlled House.

Unable to do anything in the short term, both parties will devote their energies to nothing but campaign gestures for 2012. The rhetoric will fly. Childishness will mount. Public nausea will hit an all-time high.

Somewhere in the country, though, there is a politician who is going to try to lead us out of this logjam. Whoever that person is, I hope he or she is listening carefully to what the public is saying. Because when you listen carefully, you notice the public anger doesn’t quite match the political class anger. The political class is angry about ideological things: bloated government or the predatory rich. The public seems to be angry about values.

The heart of any moral system is the connection between action and consequences. Today’s public anger rises from the belief that this connection has been severed in one realm after another.

Financiers send the world into recession and don’t seem to suffer. Neighbors take on huge mortgages and then just walk away when they go underwater. Washington politicians avoid living within their means. Federal agencies fail and get rewarded with more responsibilities.

What the country is really looking for is a restoration of responsibility. If some smart leader is going to help us get out of ideological gridlock, that leader will reframe politics around this end.

Philip K. Howard has thought hard about the decay of responsibility and what can be done to reverse it. In a series of books ranging from “The Death of Common Sense” to “Life Without Lawyers,” Howard has detailed the ways our political and legal systems undermine personal responsibility.

Over the past several decades, he argues, a thicket of spending obligations, rules and regulations has arisen, which limits individual discretion, narrows room for maneuver and makes it harder to assign responsibility.

Presidents find that more and more of their budgets are precommitted to entitlement spending. Cabinet secretaries find that their agenda can’t really be enacted because 100 million words of existing federal rules and statutes prevent innovation this way and that. Even when a new law is passed, it’s very hard to tell who is responsible for executing it because there is a profusion of agencies and bureaucratic levels all with some share of the pie.

These things weaken individual initiative, discretion and responsibility. But the decay expands well beyond Washington. Teachers don’t really control their classrooms. They have to obey a steady stream of mandates that govern everything from how they treat an unruly child to the way they teach. Doctors don’t really control their practices but must be wary of a capricious malpractice system that could strike at any moment. Local government officials don’t really govern their towns. Their room for maneuver is sharply constrained by federal mandates and by the steady stream of lawsuits that push them in ways defying common sense...

El Pollo Real said: "Oh right. I was trying to prioritize things, thinking that the redistribution of private wealth and property was a bigger threat."

Lincoln's right on this one. Sure your concerns are high priority, but so is our 2nd Ammendment and sane immigration policy. Right now, Christie is lacking cred in those areas based on some of his positions.

Now, I'm not sure how much of those positions are based on his constituency being NJ, but he's going to have to address those issues before he gets my vote. And I get just as giddy as the next person when I watch his youtube clips.

Lincoln's right on this one. Sure your concerns are high priority, but so is our 2nd Ammendment and sane immigration policy.

I'm sorry, but anyone who looks at the nation's financial situation and says "well yes, that's pretty bad, but what about the second amendment and the illegal immigrants" needs to quit smoking crack. Its bad for you.

Nothing significant is going to happen to second amendment rights no matter who the President is. Notice how we had a far-left President and a filibuster-proof Democratic Congress and second amendment rights *improved*? That's because gun-grabbing is a political loser. So even if it were possible to imagine a second-amendment issue that was even remotely as important as getting our financial house in order, that scenario is not going to happen in the next eight years. Period.

As for illegal immigration... please, cut the fuckin' bullshit. We are going to be adding a trillion dollars per year to the debt unless something is done. Suppose your nightmare scenario happens and Chris Christie signs an amnesty bill (that was somehow passed by a Republican House and not filibustered in the Senate). Ok. We can take the $8 trillion we DIDN'T add to the national debt, pay every illegal immigrant $250,000 to give up citizenship and fuck off back to Mexico, and bank the five trillion dollars we have left over.

Ok, that last bit isn't a serious proposal, but it drives home the point: there is no conceivable way that even the worst-case scenario on illegal immigration could end up doing anywhere near the harm that the government's financial irresponsibility is doing.

Okay, Rev, how about... she's respected the Tea Party better than anyone else of similar stature has respected them, and sooner.

She has "respected" the Tea Party because she needs it. She is out of office and needs to do things that keep her in the public eye. She can't NOT be involved in the major center-right political movement in America today.

I also think her involvement has been too obviously opportunistic. Her speeches to Tea Party groups have been very heavy on conservative defense, foreign policy, and social issues, and heavy on self-promotion as well. It is too obvious that she views the speeches as a means to build public support for herself, rather than public support for the movement.

Revenant...You really are a conservative in the sense that nyou conserve your opinion and world view in face of reality. The aplomb that has made Palin unstoppable has been her rounding up the Tea Party resolve/anger and giving it a place inside the GOP rather than driving it into a third party role. That was a brilliant move. 1) it stops the trick Ross Perot played to help Clinton, and 2)it gives palin a dominant team inside the GOP. The GOP insiders appreciate #1, but they are incensed at #2. She has snookered them ... trapped their Queen... resulting in the intense anger at O'Donnell as the Palin group's image that the GOP insiders can smear night and day as a substitute to overtly assassinating the popular Sarah. Bean counters and Rovians beware! Popularity always wins. Juries and voters do not give diddly squat to people that they dislike.

Jesus Rev, I said someone else had a point and you lost your shit. Good job fuckhead, all the standard rules about ad homs apply. If I had come out that way against you I'd be all about it. Instead, you just make an ass of yourself and look a lot like Jeremy in the process.

Here's a challenge silly boy - go back and tell me where I placed our financial problems in the priority list and then tell me where I placed the 2nd ammendment and illegal immigration. Then apply it to your overcooked response.

If you want to talk, then let's talk. But if you're gonna get all butthurt becuase I'm not a big fan of your boyfriend, then let's just call it a flamewar and not do it all half-assed like.

Ilya Somin of Volokh noted that he likes the libertarian Daniels. I guess I can understand being Jewish and liking quiet political music. Christie is too good a communicator to pass up though. I like Palin's verve and insouciance. She doesn't realize though that without the Bader Supreme Court gang she wouldn't be, only acknowledges it by inference in being a victim. That isn't enough presidential timber; she, and we along with her, would be crushed by the job.

The aplomb that has made Palin unstoppable has been her rounding up the Tea Party resolve/anger and giving it a place inside the GOP rather than driving it into a third party role.

This benefits the Tea Party how? Obviously it benefits Palin and the Republican old guard, but what's it doing to benefit the tea party movement? Oh goody, now the momentum behind a popular small-government political movement is associated with the usual Republican chickenshit issues like abortion and gay marriage.

Popularity always wins. Juries and voters do not give diddly squat to people that they dislike.

Anyone wanting Palin to run for President had better hope the votes DON'T depend on popularity, because there aren't enough people who like her to elect her President.

She'd win McCain-like support from Republicans, basically no support from Democrats, and around a third of the swing voters. Obama wins, 65-35.

Evolution is the gradual change of species, and emergence of new species, over successive generations. That this happens is an observed fact.

The theory of evolution by natural selection is a theory explaining why the evolution we know for a fact is happening, is happening. So "evolution", as it is colloquially called, is both a fact and a theory.

go back and tell me where I placed our financial problems in the priority list and then tell me where I placed the 2nd ammendment and illegal immigration.

You agreed with Lincolntf's comment that Christie's position on gun and immigration issues disqualified him from being a good candidate in 2012, and that he would need to address those issues before you'd consider voting for him. For the reasons I described in my prior comment, anyone who refuses to vote for pretty much the only fiscally responsible Republicans to hold elected office in the last ten years because he is bad on gun and immgration issues, is nuts.

Also, the only ad hominem in that post was my statement that people who think like you and lincoln are on crack. The rest of the post consisted of arguments why your issues pale in comparison to our financial situation. You replied to this with three paragraphs of content-free whining. Man up and make a real argument.